blob: 6ca3e20ccbbca27c56f53f4cedbf60235c3b401a (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
|
// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=cplusplus -verify %s
// RUN: %clang_analyze_cc1 -analyzer-checker=cplusplus -verify %s -DEMPTY_CLASS
// UNSUPPORTED: system-windows
// expected-no-diagnostics
// This test reproduces the issue that previously the static analyzer
// initialized an [[no_unique_address]] empty field to zero,
// over-writing a non-empty field with the same offset.
namespace std {
#ifdef EMPTY_CLASS
struct default_delete {};
template <class _Tp, class _Dp = default_delete >
#else
// Class with methods and static members is still empty:
template <typename T>
class default_delete {
T dump();
static T x;
};
template <class _Tp, class _Dp = default_delete<_Tp> >
#endif
class unique_ptr {
[[no_unique_address]] _Tp * __ptr_;
[[no_unique_address]] _Dp __deleter_;
public:
explicit unique_ptr(_Tp* __p) noexcept
: __ptr_(__p),
__deleter_() {}
~unique_ptr() {
delete __ptr_;
}
};
}
struct X {};
int main()
{
// Previously a leak falsely reported here. It was because the
// Static Analyzer engine simulated the initialization of
// `__deleter__` incorrectly. The engine assigned zero to
// `__deleter__`--an empty record sharing offset with `__ptr__`.
// The assignment over wrote `__ptr__`.
std::unique_ptr<X> a(new X());
return 0;
}
|
